The Pictet Experiment and GW Hardcore Denialists..

[flacaltenn]

I've often wondered how otherwise reasonable folks could be so adamant about refuting GW as to question the validity of the basic science behind what's known as the GreenHouse effect. It's truly convienient to insist that CO2 has no effect on insulating the Earth from heat loss and it cuts short the hard work of opposing GW hysterics by simply saying "it CAN'T be so"..

So -- I finally looked at some of the tenets of these believers after understanding that one of them actually believed that you can transfer "cold" thru a lens.. Now in the mid 18th century -- that had a huge following due to the experiment of Pictet... Which is a truly amazing and interesting epic in Physics. It appears to be magic in fact to many scientists until they learn the "secret"..

In this experiment, the parabolic mirrors serve to concentrate all the light (including IR radiation from all objects within the focusing range of those mirrors. So when Pictet put a very warm flask in the focus of the LEFT mirror -- it naturally raised the temperature of the thermometer in the RIGHT focus. He then placed a slushie (ice/water) in the place of the hot object and it LOWERED the temperature of the thermometer below the room ambient temperature. He was CONVINCED that he had focused "cold" onto the thermometer.

This argument is meant to contradict the 2-way (actually multi-way) propagation of radiant heat in the world all around us. The pertinence to GW is that is how the added CO2 to the atmosphere helps to retard the loss of Earth surface heat to the universe. Often referred to (only in climate science) as "back-radiation".

Also used to cling to the thermodynamics 2nd law that "heat only flows from warmer to cooler objects" in the case of radiative heat or InfraRed energy. So to explain how a simple IR thermometer works without 2 way propagation of IR photons -- they instead refer to Pictet focusing "cold" onto a thermal detector.

Short explanation of this experiment actually is --- from the paper excepted above --- roughly as follows..

When the 2 mirrors are in place -- they effectively shield the thermometer from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the IR radiative heating that exists in the room. (optics works a lot like some parabolic reflectors they had in a science theatre in San Fran. Where you could have a clear conversation with someone across a huge expanse of floor, because all the sound waves got "amplified" above the ambient noise in the room) Thus removing that amount of incoming radiative heat into the thermometer. When the hot object is placed to the left it provides MORE IR radiation than was taken away by the placement of mirrors.

Conversely -- with the thermometer having a much lower exposure to IR radiation compared to other objects in the room due to the optics -- when the slush in placed to the left -- the thermometer is now LOSING more IR than other unshielded objects in the room and therefore takes off going BELOW ambient temperature. Net flow of radiant heat is to the colder object from warmer thermometer and NOTHING in thermodynamics is violated..

What Pictet did was to construct (maybe) the worlds first IR thermometer. But he left out the most important part. And that is a CALIBRATION REFERENCE to the normal ambient room temperature of the thermometer. Took over 5 decades for Physics to settle this back then. Just like any science -- it's not really settled -- until you understand all the MAGIC parts.

 

[mamooth]

A closely related experiment is using a solar oven as a "refrigerator" by pointing it at a cold sky, like this gentleman talks about.

using a solar oven as a radiant refrigerator at night

One might claim the oven is "focusing the cold", but that would be wrong. The parabolic mirror of the oven shoots out most of the IR radiating from whatever is inside it. The parabolic mirror does not focus the diffuse backradation coming in, so little energy comes in. If it's thermally insulated well enough to prevent heat conduction into it, and the air is still enough so that heat doesn't blow in, then water placed in the oven can be made to freeze, even if air temperatures are above freezing.

 

[flacaltenn]

A closely related experiment is using a solar oven as a "refrigerator" by pointing it at a cold sky, like this gentleman talks about.

using a solar oven as a radiant refrigerator at night

One might claim the oven is "focusing the cold", but that would be wrong. The parabolic mirror of the oven shoots out most of the IR radiating from whatever is inside it. The parabolic mirror does not focus the diffuse backradation coming in, so little energy comes in. If it's thermally insulated well enough to prevent heat conduction into it, and the air is still enough so that heat doesn't blow in, then water placed in the oven can be made to freeze, even if air temperatures are above freezing.

I don't know what's in the bottom of that solar cooker chest that the guy in Australia was noting.. But it had some similar parabolic mirror of some fashion to be a "cooker". So ACTUALLY that parabolic DOES act an amplifier to focus more "back radiation" onto the stuff inside. (even tho it's diffused, enough comes from long enough distances and appears to be parallel) But since the net exchange is overwhelmingly to the sky -- it's still a net loss.

Wonder if you put a IR blocking filter (about 6 inches or so above the top of the cooker) on one of these solar "coolers" if you would increase it's efficiency.. Since it wouldn't effect the up-dwell -- but it sure as heck would kill the down-dwell IR !!! Want to file a patent ????

Hysterically --- the term "fridgerific rays" was invented to account for this focusing of cold. And discussed as an equal to the known existence of some kind of heat wave generation from most objects..

Had Pictet varied his experiment over a range of different ambient temperatures -- he might have gotten a clue that this "fridgerific" contribution was related only to the radiative part of the heat transfer. And maybe could have solved the problem with what was known about radiative heat back then..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've often wondered how otherwise reasonable folks could be so adamant about refuting GW as to question the validity of the basic science behind what's known as the GreenHouse effect. It's truly convienient to insist that CO2 has no effect on insulating the Earth from heat loss and it cuts short the hard work of opposing GW hysterics by simply saying "it CAN'T be so"..

So -- I finally looked at some of the tenets of these believers after understanding that one of them actually believed that you can transfer "cold" thru a lens.. Now in the mid 18th century -- that had a huge following due to the experiment of Pictet... Which is a truly amazing and interesting epic in Physics. It appears to be magic in fact to many scientists until they learn the "secret"..

In this experiment, the parabolic mirrors serve to concentrate all the light (including IR radiation from all objects within the focusing range of those mirrors. So when Pictet put a very warm flask in the focus of the LEFT mirror -- it naturally raised the temperature of the thermometer in the RIGHT focus. He then placed a slushie (ice/water) in the place of the hot object and it LOWERED the temperature of the thermometer below the room ambient temperature. He was CONVINCED that he had focused "cold" onto the thermometer.

This argument is meant to contradict the 2-way (actually multi-way) propagation of radiant heat in the world all around us. The pertinence to GW is that is how the added CO2 to the atmosphere helps to retard the loss of Earth surface heat to the universe. Often referred to (only in climate science) as "back-radiation".

Also used to cling to the thermodynamics 2nd law that "heat only flows from warmer to cooler objects" in the case of radiative heat or InfraRed energy. So to explain how a simple IR thermometer works without 2 way propagation of IR photons -- they instead refer to Pictet focusing "cold" onto a thermal detector.

Short explanation of this experiment actually is --- from the paper excepted above --- roughly as follows..

When the 2 mirrors are in place -- they effectively shield the thermometer from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the IR radiative heating that exists in the room. (optics works a lot like some parabolic reflectors they had in a science theatre in San Fran. Where you could have a clear conversation with someone across a huge expanse of floor, because all the sound waves got "amplified" above the ambient noise in the room) Thus removing that amount of incoming radiative heat into the thermometer. When the hot object is placed to the left it provides MORE IR radiation than was taken away by the placement of mirrors.

Conversely -- with the thermometer having a much lower exposure to IR radiation compared to other objects in the room due to the optics -- when the slush in placed to the left -- the thermometer is now LOSING more IR than other unshielded objects in the room and therefore takes off going BELOW ambient temperature. Net flow of radiant heat is to the colder object from warmer thermometer and NOTHING in thermodynamics is violated..

What Pictet did was to construct (maybe) the worlds first IR thermometer. But he left out the most important part. And that is a CALIBRATION REFERENCE to the normal ambient room temperature of the thermometer. Took over 5 decades for Physics to settle this back then. Just like any science -- it's not really settled -- until you understand all the MAGIC parts.

One thing Pictet had issues with was other sources of IR in the room. Just like our atmosphere there are other sources in the same 12um-18um range which will affect the out come of the readings. It is unraveling what % of IR is from what source that has not been done.

Much like our atmosphere, water vapor acts as a prism when in droplet or crystalline form. Other forms of LWIR are emitted from multiple other gases or absorbed by water vapor. When you have multiple sources and convergences you will have hot and cold areas simply due to water vapor concentration and wind patterns. Heat retention will not be uniform. And sea water is another subject as it is not a black body. (the water bubble in fiber optical cabling manufacture knocks out the 1300um to about 1450um band making it useless for data transmission. The water used to cool the fiber during manufacture is what causes this. Apply this same known problem with our atmosphere full of water.)

I dont deny that CO2 has LWIR absorption and emitter properties, I do however disagree with the so called "green house effect" as the earth is an open system, unlike a true closed system green house. Very little black body LWIR ( less than 12%) is actually reflect by our atmosphere towards the earth while a true green house would have almost a 100% reflection of heat.

Pictet's experiment clearly shows that emitted LWIR of a black body can be bent or directed using optical devices. They also showed that different particles had varying shielding effects. The composition of a warm atmosphere reacts very differently than a cool atmosphere simply due to water concentration and particulate matter.

I guess the 74 trillion dollar question is just how much does CO2 actually do in our atmosphere? I have posted many times that the natural variation rate is unchanged for over 150 years, indicating that the rise in CO2 has had an unmeasurable effect. Quantification is key and they have not quantified it with any certainty. This is why all of their models fail. WE simply do not understand all the "magic" stuff yet.

Pictet's experiment opened up more questions than it gave answers. It is not the basic physics that are in question, it is the application of what we think we know and then putting on blinders becasue we dont like what others experiments tell us.

Can man have an influence? He most certainly can, but we dont have much credibility in unmanipulated data on it becasue some idiots think the science is settled.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly Billy, Mr. Flacaltenn presented some very interesting science. You presented, as usual, ignorant drivel.

The GHG effect was proven over 150 years ago.

 

[Crick]

I dont deny that CO2 has LWIR absorption and emitter properties, I do however disagree with the so called "green house effect" as the earth is an open system, unlike a true closed system green house. Very little black body LWIR ( less than 12%) is actually reflect by our atmosphere towards the earth while a true green house would have almost a 100% reflection of heat.

Please explain. Where did you get 12%, where did you get the idea that the greenhouse effect would send 100% of IR back to the Earth and where did you get the idea that the process involved reflection?

 

[IanC]

He said it was 30% last time. And when I asked him to explain he put up a link to mid range IR that didn't even include the important CO2 band.

I don't think he has a coherent understanding of any of this stuff. He must have grown up watching Cliff Clavin on Cheers, not realizing he was a joke.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He said it was 30% last time. And when I asked him to explain he put up a link to mid range IR that didn't even include the important CO2 band.

I don't think he has a coherent understanding of any of this stuff. He must have grown up watching Cliff Clavin on Cheers, not realizing he was a joke.

You, Crick and Old Fraud really do not understand the math or the science when it comes to wave (photon) transmission and how other substances affect them. Its like trying to teach a quadriplegic how to drink water using his own hand. Your blinders are firmly affixed!

The only jokes here are those who believe that only their "approved science" is true. Tell me how consensus has worked out in the past, has any of it ever stood the empirical review test? Not one consensus lap dog piece of crap has stood the test of time. The earth circles the sun and the sun circles the universe plane.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've often wondered how otherwise reasonable folks could be so adamant about refuting GW as to question the validity of the basic science behind what's known as the GreenHouse effect. It's truly convienient to insist that CO2 has no effect on insulating the Earth from heat loss and it cuts short the hard work of opposing GW hysterics by simply saying "it CAN'T be so"..

So -- I finally looked at some of the tenets of these believers after understanding that one of them actually believed that you can transfer "cold" thru a lens.. Now in the mid 18th century -- that had a huge following due to the experiment of Pictet... Which is a truly amazing and interesting epic in Physics. It appears to be magic in fact to many scientists until they learn the "secret"..

In this experiment, the parabolic mirrors serve to concentrate all the light (including IR radiation from all objects within the focusing range of those mirrors. So when Pictet put a very warm flask in the focus of the LEFT mirror -- it naturally raised the temperature of the thermometer in the RIGHT focus. He then placed a slushie (ice/water) in the place of the hot object and it LOWERED the temperature of the thermometer below the room ambient temperature. He was CONVINCED that he had focused "cold" onto the thermometer.

This argument is meant to contradict the 2-way (actually multi-way) propagation of radiant heat in the world all around us. The pertinence to GW is that is how the added CO2 to the atmosphere helps to retard the loss of Earth surface heat to the universe. Often referred to (only in climate science) as "back-radiation".

Also used to cling to the thermodynamics 2nd law that "heat only flows from warmer to cooler objects" in the case of radiative heat or InfraRed energy. So to explain how a simple IR thermometer works without 2 way propagation of IR photons -- they instead refer to Pictet focusing "cold" onto a thermal detector.

Short explanation of this experiment actually is --- from the paper excepted above --- roughly as follows..

When the 2 mirrors are in place -- they effectively shield the thermometer from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the IR radiative heating that exists in the room. (optics works a lot like some parabolic reflectors they had in a science theatre in San Fran. Where you could have a clear conversation with someone across a huge expanse of floor, because all the sound waves got "amplified" above the ambient noise in the room) Thus removing that amount of incoming radiative heat into the thermometer. When the hot object is placed to the left it provides MORE IR radiation than was taken away by the placement of mirrors.

Conversely -- with the thermometer having a much lower exposure to IR radiation compared to other objects in the room due to the optics -- when the slush in placed to the left -- the thermometer is now LOSING more IR than other unshielded objects in the room and therefore takes off going BELOW ambient temperature. Net flow of radiant heat is to the colder object from warmer thermometer and NOTHING in thermodynamics is violated..

What Pictet did was to construct (maybe) the worlds first IR thermometer. But he left out the most important part. And that is a CALIBRATION REFERENCE to the normal ambient room temperature of the thermometer. Took over 5 decades for Physics to settle this back then. Just like any science -- it's not really settled -- until you understand all the MAGIC parts.

One thing Pictet had issues with was other sources of IR in the room. Just like our atmosphere there are other sources in the same 12um-18um range which will affect the out come of the readings. It is unraveling what % of IR is from what source that has not been done.

Much like our atmosphere, water vapor acts as a prism when in droplet or crystalline form. Other forms of LWIR are emitted from multiple other gases or absorbed by water vapor. When you have multiple sources and convergences you will have hot and cold areas simply due to water vapor concentration and wind patterns. Heat retention will not be uniform. And sea water is another subject as it is not a black body. (the water bubble in fiber optical cabling manufacture knocks out the 1300um to about 1450um band making it useless for data transmission. The water used to cool the fiber during manufacture is what causes this. Apply this same known problem with our atmosphere full of water.)

I dont deny that CO2 has LWIR absorption and emitter properties, I do however disagree with the so called "green house effect" as the earth is an open system, unlike a true closed system green house. Very little black body LWIR ( less than 12%) is actually reflect by our atmosphere towards the earth while a true green house would have almost a 100% reflection of heat.

Pictet's experiment clearly shows that emitted LWIR of a black body can be bent or directed using optical devices. They also showed that different particles had varying shielding effects. The composition of a warm atmosphere reacts very differently than a cool atmosphere simply due to water concentration and particulate matter.

I guess the 74 trillion dollar question is just how much does CO2 actually do in our atmosphere? I have posted many times that the natural variation rate is unchanged for over 150 years, indicating that the rise in CO2 has had an unmeasurable effect. Quantification is key and they have not quantified it with any certainty. This is why all of their models fail. WE simply do not understand all the "magic" stuff yet.

Pictet's experiment opened up more questions than it gave answers. It is not the basic physics that are in question, it is the application of what we think we know and then putting on blinders becasue we dont like what others experiments tell us.

Can man have an influence? He most certainly can, but we dont have much credibility in unmanipulated data on it becasue some idiots think the science is settled.

To further expand on Ion absorption, here is a real world proven problem with LWIR transmission.

The water cooling of fiber optics leaves trace residue of hydrogen ions in the glass. These ions absorb LWIR in this spectrum attenuating the passage of light in that spectrum.

Apply this same science to our atmosphere and water vapor. The range of attenuation traps LWIR and allows its transport up beyond where it can re-emit LWIR towards the surface. The hydrogen ion is the key to waters ability to absorb and hold LWIR for a period of time before re-emittance.

It is intricacies like this in our atmosphere, which we dont yet understand well, that show those touting AGW as settled science as the farces they are.

 

[Crick]

The range of attenuation traps LWIR and allows its transport up beyond where it can re-emit LWIR towards the surface.

"Beyond where it can re-emit LWIR towards the surface"??? Where, exactly, is that Billy Boy?

PS: and just for fun, what is it you're attempting to communicate with the phrase "range of attenuation"?

 

[SSDD]

I've often wondered how otherwise reasonable folks could be so adamant about refuting GW as to question the validity of the basic science behind what's known as the GreenHouse effect. It's truly convienient to insist that CO2 has no effect on insulating the Earth from heat loss and it cuts short the hard work of opposing GW hysterics by simply saying "it CAN'T be so"..

So -- I finally looked at some of the tenets of these believers after understanding that one of them actually believed that you can transfer "cold" thru a lens.. Now in the mid 18th century -- that had a huge following due to the experiment of Pictet... Which is a truly amazing and interesting epic in Physics. It appears to be magic in fact to many scientists until they learn the "secret"...

Wow flacaltenn...you usually don't stoop to making up things to argue against. I can only assume that since you brought up Pictet's experiment that you are talking about me and my comment regarding your infrared thermometer and how it works...I said that you could refer to Picket's experiment for a general explanation of how your thermometer works...I didn't ever suggest that you could transfer cold through a lens....that was what Picket thought he was seeing...early example of fooling oneself with instrumentation. When he focused the lens on the warm object, the cooler object began to cool, precisely as the second law predicts.....just as the thermopile in your handheld thermometer does when it is pointed at a cooler object. That is a far cry from believing that you can transfer cold through a lens.

Imagine...starting a whole thread based on a misrepresentation of what I said. Of all the folks here, I figured you to be the least likely to misrepresent in an effort to prove some point. Does it make you feel better?

Out here in the real world, as opposed to the world of models and mathematical equations, the observed, measured effect of CO2 on the global climate remains at zero...unless of course, you have some super secret measurements that the rest of the world is not privy to which would in all likelihood result in an easy Nobel for you.

 

[Crick]

unless of course, you have some super secret measurements that the rest of the world is not privy to which would in all likelihood result in an easy Nobel for you.

What's this Whizbrain?

https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

 

[flacaltenn]

I've often wondered how otherwise reasonable folks could be so adamant about refuting GW as to question the validity of the basic science behind what's known as the GreenHouse effect. It's truly convienient to insist that CO2 has no effect on insulating the Earth from heat loss and it cuts short the hard work of opposing GW hysterics by simply saying "it CAN'T be so"..

So -- I finally looked at some of the tenets of these believers after understanding that one of them actually believed that you can transfer "cold" thru a lens.. Now in the mid 18th century -- that had a huge following due to the experiment of Pictet... Which is a truly amazing and interesting epic in Physics. It appears to be magic in fact to many scientists until they learn the "secret"...

Wow flacaltenn...you usually don't stoop to making up things to argue against. I can only assume that since you brought up Pictet's experiment that you are talking about me and my comment regarding your infrared thermometer and how it works...I said that you could refer to Picket's experiment for a general explanation of how your thermometer works...I didn't ever suggest that you could transfer cold through a lens....that was what Picket thought he was seeing...early example of fooling oneself with instrumentation. When he focused the lens on the warm object, the cooler object began to cool, precisely as the second law predicts.....just as the thermopile in your handheld thermometer does when it is pointed at a cooler object. That is a far cry from believing that you can transfer cold through a lens.

Imagine...starting a whole thread based on a misrepresentation of what I said. Of all the folks here, I figured you to be the least likely to misrepresent in an effort to prove some point. Does it make you feel better?

Out here in the real world, as opposed to the world of models and mathematical equations, the observed, measured effect of CO2 on the global climate remains at zero...unless of course, you have some super secret measurements that the rest of the world is not privy to which would in all likelihood result in an easy Nobel for you.

Wasn't personal SSDD.. You prompted me to look into it. Because that's how I operate. I wanted to find out WHY you used that as an excuse to deny how an IR thermometer works. And lo --- when I went to investigate --- the first 6 websites that came up were the Hard Core deniers like yourself -- who oppose GW baloney on the basis that it CANNOT EXIST -- because there is no 2 way (multi-way) IR radiation...

And I discovered -- that after LEARNING about how Pictet had misinterpreted his experiment (understandable of course) --- that the Denier folks USING this as a crutch -- STILL did not understand that the results were misinterpreted.

All that is COMPLETELY understandable -- because I'm told many Physicists view it as magic when they are first presented with the experiment. So it's not a slight to you -- or to sites like

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: Radiative Heat Transfer: History who get it ALL wrong.

Or to the folks at the HockeyShtick which only get it SORTA right.. IT"S NOT AN EASY CONCEPT..

I actually THANK-YOU for pointing out this interesting piece of Physic History. Because it shows how we arrived at a true and workable understanding of Radiative heating. Love science --- Love solving problems.

So it's NOT a call-out of any kind. But it might help in my efforts to make you a more PRODUCTIVE denier..
It's a great example of trying to measure radiative temperature from a body without including an "ambient reference" for calibration of the readings..

 

[SSDD]

What's this Whizbrain?

What that is, idiot child, is evidence that CO2 absorbs IR in a very narrow wavelength...You left out the graph that is evidence that CO2 emits IR, also in a very narrow wavelength...what it is not, is any kind of evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...and yet another example of warmers fooling themselves with instrumentation. Absorption and emission do not equal warming...the empirical evidence that supports the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis remains non existent.

 

[Crick]

As I have previously explained to you, idiot child and as the included text explains, idiot child, that IS a measure of IR, idiot child, being emitted AT the surface, idiot child, BY the Earth's atmosphere, idiot child. It is NOT an absorption spectrum, idiot child. It's resemblance to an SB curve should have made that obvious, idiot child. An absorption spectrum looks like this, idiot child:

 

[SSDD]

As I have previously explained to you, idiot child and as the included text explains, idiot child, that IS a measure of IR, idiot child, being emitted AT the surface, idiot child, BY the Earth's atmosphere, idiot child. It is NOT an absorption spectrum, idiot child. It's resemblance to an SB curve should have made that obvious, idiot child. An absorption spectrum looks like this, idiot child:

Sorry guy...evidence of absorption and emission are not evidence of a cause of warming....and of course it's an absorption spectrum...problem is that it is in the form of a graph and as we all know you can't look at a graph and make heads or tails from it.

 

[Crick]

I'm not the one that TWICE misunderstood what the graph displays despite clear explanation from the study author right next to it. You've been the fucking idiot here. That obviously IS proof of warming - it is a direct measurement of IR energy coming from the atmosphere and striking the surface of the Earth.